DOCSLIB.ORG

DRY SENECA CREEK & LITTLE SENECA CREEK Pre-Assessment

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DRY SENECA CREEK & LITTLE SENECA CREEK Pre-Assessment DRY SENECA CREEK & LITTLE SENECA CREEK Pre-Assessment Report PREPARED FOR: MONTGOMERY COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 255 Rockville Pike, Suite 120 May 2011 PRE‐ASSESSMENT REPORT Dry Seneca Creek and Little Seneca Creek May 2011 Prepared for: Montgomery County Department of Environmental Protection 255 Rockville Pike, Suite 120 Rockville, MD 20850 Prepared by: Versar 9200 Rumsey Rd Columbia, MD 21045‐1934 In collaboration with: Biohabitats, Inc. Chesapeake Stormwater Network 2081 Clipper Park Road 117 Ingleside Avenue Baltimore, MD 21211 Baltimore, MD 21228 Horsley Witten Group RESOLVE 90 Route 6A 1255 23rd Street, NW, Suite 875 Sandwich, MA 02563 Washington, DC, 20037 Capuco Consulting Services 914 Bay Ridge Road, Suite 206 Annapolis, MD 21403 Dry Seneca Creek and Little Seneca Creek Pre‐Assessment Report May 2011 Page 2 of 40 Dry Seneca Creek and Little Seneca Creek Pre‐Assessment Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1. INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................... 7 1.1 Regulatory and Programmatic Context ........................................................................ 7 1.2 Goals of the Pre‐Assessment ........................................................................................ 8 2. ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS ...................................................................................... 9 2.1 The Dry Seneca Creek and Little Seneca Creek ............................................................ 9 2.1.1 Dry Seneca Creek .............................................................................................. 9 2.1.2 Little Seneca Creek .......................................................................................... 12 2.2 Land‐use Characteristics ............................................................................................. 12 2.3 Impervious Features ................................................................................................... 14 2.4 Hydrologic Soil Groups ................................................................................................ 16 2.5 Forest Cover ................................................................................................................ 18 2.6 Wetlands ..................................................................................................................... 20 2.7 Biological Indicators of Watershed Condition ............................................................ 22 2.8 Existing Stormwater Best Management Practices (BMPs) ......................................... 26 2.9 Riparian Forested Buffers ........................................................................................... 29 3. ACTION INVENTORY ...................................................................................................... 31 3.1 Desktop analysis of Neighborhood‐Scale stormwater BMP Retrofit Opportunities .. 31 3.2 County Focus Areas ..................................................................................................... 34 3.3 Education and Outreach for Trash Reduction ............................................................ 37 3.4 Next Steps ................................................................................................................... 37 3.4.1 Steps to Complete the Watershed Assessment ............................................. 38 4. REFERENCES ......................................................................................................................... 40 May 2011 Page 3 of 40 Dry Seneca Creek and Little Seneca Creek Pre‐Assessment Report LIST OF TABLES Table Page 2 ‐1. Land use in Dry Seneca Creek and Little Seneca Creek subwatersheds, Montgomery County, Maryland....................................................................................... 12 2 ‐2. Impervious cover by type for Dry Seneca Creek and Little Seneca Creek subwatersheds, Montgomery County, Maryland............................................................. 14 2 ‐3. Characteristics of stormwater BMPs (facilities) permitted before and after 1986 in Dry Seneca Creek and Little Seneca Creek subwatersheds, Montgomery County, Maryland...........................................................................................................................28 2 ‐4. Forested acres and percent forest cover along 100 foot riparian buffer in Dry Seneca Creek and Little Seneca Creek subwatersheds, Montgomery County, Maryland............ 29 3 ‐1. Stormwater BMP Retrofit Priorities in Dry Seneca Creek and Little Seneca Creek subwatersheds................................................................................................................. 31 3‐2. Untreated Acres, Untreated Impervious Area, and Percent in the total Untreated acres in the Focus Areas of the Dry Seneca Creek and Little Seneca Creek subwatersheds, Montgomery County, Maryland............................................................. 35 3‐3. Dry Seneca Creek and Little Seneca Creek Impervious Area Targets for County MS4..... 38 May 2011 Page 4 of 40 Dry Seneca Creek and Little Seneca Creek Pre‐Assessment Report LIST OF FIGURES Figure Page 2‐1. Dry Seneca Creek and Little Seneca Creek subwatersheds in greater Montgomery County, Maryland................................................................................................................10 2‐2. Landmarks in and around Little Seneca Creek and Dry Seneca Creek in Montgomery County, Maryland................................................................................................................11 2‐3. Land use in Dry Seneca Creek and Little Seneca Creek subwatersheds, Montgomery County, Maryland................................................................................................................13 2‐4. Impervious cover in Dry Seneca Creek and Little Seneca Creek subwatersheds, Montgomery County, Maryland..........................................................................................15 2‐5. Hydrologic soil groups in Dry Seneca Creek and Little Seneca Creek subwatersheds, Montgomery County, Maryland….......................................................................................17 2‐6. Forest cover distribution in Dry Seneca Creek and Little Seneca Creek subwatersheds, Montgomery County, Maryland..........................................................................................19 2‐7. Wetland types and extent in Dry Seneca Creek and Little Seneca Creek subwatersheds, Montgomery County, Maryland..........................................................................................21 2‐8. Stream condition ratings in Dry Seneca Creek and Little Seneca Creek subwatersheds, Montgomery County, Maryland..........................................................................................23 2‐9. Benthic condition (BIBI) rating at sampling points in the Dry Seneca Creek and Little Seneca Creek subwatersheds, Montgomery County, Maryland…......................................24 2‐10. Fish condition (FIBI) rating at sampling points in the Dry Seneca Creek and Little Seneca Creek subwatersheds, Montgomery County, Maryland.....................................................25 2‐11. Existing stormwater management BMPs and their drainage areas in Little Monocacy and Broad Run subwatersheds, Montgomery County, Maryland......................................27 2‐12. Presence or absence of forest in 100‐foot riparian zone on each side of waterway, Dry Seneca Creek and Little Seneca Creek subwatersheds, Montgomery County, Maryland...........................................................................................................................30 3‐1. Project area priorities for candidate stormwater retrofit in Dry Seneca Creek and Little Seneca Creek subwatersheds, Montgomery County, Maryland........................................32 May 2011 Page 5 of 40 Dry Seneca Creek and Little Seneca Creek Pre‐Assessment Report 3‐2. Focus Areas for restoration projects identified by Montgomery County DEP in Dry Seneca Creek and Little Seneca Creek subwatersheds, Montgomery County, Maryland...........................................................................................................................36 May 2011 Page 6 of 40 Dry Seneca Creek and Little Seneca Creek Pre‐Assessment Report 1. INTRODUCTION To successfully meet its regulatory requirements and environmental goals, Montgomery County must complete watershed assessments until all land area in the County is covered by a specific action plan to address the water quality problems that are identified through the assessments. No watershed assessment or action plan has yet been completed for the Dry Seneca Creek and Little Seneca Creek. Therefore, the County has undertaken preparation of this “Pre‐Assessment” as the first step toward completing a watershed restoration plan that will, ultimately, address changing watershed conditions, apply new restoration technologies, and refine implementation strategies, as needed to achieve watershed restoration success. The Recommended Framework for Watershed Restoration Plans describes this process in detail and provides background information on how the pre‐assessments are being developed and will evolve into watershed restoration plans. 1.1 REGULATORY AND PROGRAMMATIC CONTEXT The Dry Seneca Creek and Little Seneca Creek subwatersheds in Montgomery County drain to Seneca Creek which continues flowing to the Potomac River. The Great Seneca subwatershed
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds
    Defining the Indigenous Cultural Landscape for The Nanjemoy and Mattawoman Creek Watersheds Prepared By: Scott M. Strickland Virginia R. Busby Julia A. King With Contributions From: Francis Gray • Diana Harley • Mervin Savoy • Piscataway Conoy Tribe of Maryland Mark Tayac • Piscataway Indian Nation Joan Watson • Piscataway Conoy Confederacy and Subtribes Rico Newman • Barry Wilson • Choptico Band of Piscataway Indians Hope Butler • Cedarville Band of Piscataway Indians Prepared For: The National Park Service Chesapeake Bay Annapolis, Maryland St. Mary’s College of Maryland St. Mary’s City, Maryland November 2015 ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The purpose of this project was to identify and represent the Indigenous Cultural Landscape for the Nanjemoy and Mattawoman creek watersheds on the north shore of the Potomac River in Charles and Prince George’s counties, Maryland. The project was undertaken as an initiative of the National Park Service Chesapeake Bay office, which supports and manages the Captain John Smith Chesapeake National Historic Trail. One of the goals of the Captain John Smith Trail is to interpret Native life in the Middle Atlantic in the early years of colonization by Europeans. The Indigenous Cultural Landscape (ICL) concept, developed as an important tool for identifying Native landscapes, has been incorporated into the Smith Trail’s Comprehensive Management Plan in an effort to identify Native communities along the trail as they existed in the early17th century and as they exist today. Identifying ICLs along the Smith Trail serves land and cultural conservation, education, historic preservation, and economic development goals. Identifying ICLs empowers descendant indigenous communities to participate fully in achieving these goals.
    [Show full text]
  • Mile Creek Area Limited Amendment Clarksburg Master Plan and Hyattstown Special Study Area
    Approved and Adopted July 2014 10Mile Creek Area Limited Amendment Clarksburg Master Plan and Hyattstown Special Study Area Montgomery County Planning Department M-NCPPC MongomeryPlanning.org APPROVED and ADOPTED 10 Mile Creek Area Limited Amendment Clarksburg Master Plan ans Hyattstown Special Study Area Abstract This document is a Limited Amendment to the 1994 Clarksburg Master Plan and Hyattstown Special Study Area for the Ten Mile Creek Watershed. It retains the 1994 Master Plan vision, but refines 1994 Plan recommendations to better achieve two important objectives: the creation of a well-defined corridor town that provides jobs, homes, and commercial activities; and the preservation of natural resources critical to the County’s well-being. The Amendment contains land use, zoning, transportation, parks, and historic resources recommendations for the portions of the Planning Area in the Ten Mile Creek Watershed. Source of Copies The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission 8787 Georgia Avenue Silver Spring, MD 20910 Online: www.MontgomeryPlanning.org/community/plan_areas/I270_corridor/clarksburg/ clarksburg_lim_amendment.shtm Notice to Readers An area master plan, after approval by the District Council and adoption by the Maryland- National Capital Park and Planning Commission, constitutes an amendment to The General Pl (On Wedges and Corridors) for Montgomery County. Each area master plan reflects a vision of future development that responds to the unique character of the local community within the context of a Countywide perspective. Area master plans are intended to convey land use policy for defined geographic areas and should be interpreted together with relevant Countywide functional master plans. Master plans generally look ahead about 20 years from the date of adoption.
    [Show full text]
  • Water Resources
    Gaithersburg A Character Counts! City City of Gaithersburg WATER RESOURCES A Master Plan Element February 17, 2010 2009 MASTER PLAN CITY OF GAITHERSBURG 2009 MASTER PLAN WATER RESOURCES ELEMENT Planning Commission Approval: January 20, 2010, Resolution PCR-2-10 Mayor and City Council Adoption: February 16, 2010, Resolution R-10-10 MAYOR AND CITY COUNCIL Mayor Sidney A. Katz Council Vice President Cathy C. Drzyzgula Jud Ashman Henry F. Marraffa, Jr. Michael A. Sesma Ryan Spiegel PLANNING COMMISSION Chair John Bauer Vice-Chair Matthew Hopkins Commissioner Lloyd S. Kaufman Commissioner Leonard J. Levy Commissioner Danielle L. Winborne Alternate Commissioner Geraldine Lanier CITY MANAGER Angel L. Jones ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES Erica Shingara, former Environmental Services Director Gary Dyson, Environmental Specialist Christine Gallagher, former Environmental Assistant Meredith Strider, Environmental Assistant PLANNING AND CODE ADMINISTRATION Greg Ossont, Director, Planning & Code Administration Lauren Pruss, Planning Director Kirk Eby, GIS Planner Raymond Robinson III, Planner CIT Y CITY OF GAITHERSBURG OF GAITHERSBURG 2009 MASTER PLAN CHAPTER 2 WATER RESOURCES TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Purpose and Intent................................................................................................................ 1 2. Background.......................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Introduction.................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • 2010-2015-Data-Summary-Report
    1 The Audubon Naturalist Society is pleased to offer this report of water quality data collected by its volunteer monitors. Since the early 1990s, the Audubon Naturalist Society (ANS) has sponsored a volunteer water quality monitoring program in Montgomery County, Maryland, and Washington, DC, to increase the public’s knowledge and understanding of conditions in healthy and degraded streams and to create a bridge of cooperation and collaboration between citizens and natural resource agencies concerned about water quality protection and restoration. Every year, approximately 180-200 monitors visit permanent stream sites to collect and identify benthic macroinvertebrates and to conduct habitat assessments. To ensure the accuracy of the data, the Audubon Naturalist Society follows a quality assurance/quality control plan. Before sampling, monitors are offered extensive training in macroinvertebrate identification and habitat assessment protocols. The leader of each team must take and pass an annual certification test in benthic macroinvertebrate identification to the taxonomic level of family. Between 2010 and 2015, ANS teams monitored 28 stream sites in ten Montgomery County watersheds: Paint Branch, Northwest Branch, Sligo Creek, Upper Rock Creek, Watts Branch, Muddy Branch, Great Seneca Creek, Little Seneca Creek, Little Bennett Creek, and Hawlings River. Most of the sites are located in Montgomery County Parks; three are on private property; and one is in Seneca Creek State Park. In each accompanying individual site report, a description of the site is given; the macroinvertebrates found during each visit are listed; and a stream health score is assigned. These stream health scores are compared to scores from previous years in charts showing both long-term trends and two-year moving averages.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland Stream Waders 10 Year Report
    MARYLAND STREAM WADERS TEN YEAR (2000-2009) REPORT October 2012 Maryland Stream Waders Ten Year (2000-2009) Report Prepared for: Maryland Department of Natural Resources Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division 580 Taylor Avenue; C-2 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 1-877-620-8DNR (x8623) [email protected] Prepared by: Daniel Boward1 Sara Weglein1 Erik W. Leppo2 1 Maryland Department of Natural Resources Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division 580 Taylor Avenue; C-2 Annapolis, Maryland 21401 2 Tetra Tech, Inc. Center for Ecological Studies 400 Red Brook Boulevard, Suite 200 Owings Mills, Maryland 21117 October 2012 This page intentionally blank. Foreword This document reports on the firstt en years (2000-2009) of sampling and results for the Maryland Stream Waders (MSW) statewide volunteer stream monitoring program managed by the Maryland Department of Natural Resources’ (DNR) Monitoring and Non-tidal Assessment Division (MANTA). Stream Waders data are intended to supplementt hose collected for the Maryland Biological Stream Survey (MBSS) by DNR and University of Maryland biologists. This report provides an overview oft he Program and summarizes results from the firstt en years of sampling. Acknowledgments We wish to acknowledge, first and foremost, the dedicated volunteers who collected data for this report (Appendix A): Thanks also to the following individuals for helping to make the Program a success. • The DNR Benthic Macroinvertebrate Lab staffof Neal Dziepak, Ellen Friedman, and Kerry Tebbs, for their countless hours in
    [Show full text]
  • Capper-Cramton Resource Guide 2019
    Resource Guide Review of Projects on Lands Acquired Under the Capper-Cramton Act TAME Coalition TAME F A Martin Northwest Branch Trail Indian Creek Stream Valley Park Overview The Capper-Cramton Act (CCA) of 1930 (46 Stat. 482) was enacted for the acquisition, establishment, and development of the George Washington Memorial Parkway and stream valley parks in Maryland and Virginia to create a comprehensive park, parkway, and playground system in the National Capital.1 In addition to authorizing funding for acquisition, the act granted the National Capital Park and Planning Commission, now the National Capital Planning Commission (NCPC), review authority to approve any Capper-Cramton park development or management plan in order to ensure the protection and preservation of the region’s valuable watersheds and parklands. Subsequent amendments to the Capper-Cramton Act2 allocated funds for the acquisition and extension of this park and parkway system in Maryland and Virginia. Title to lands acquired with such funds or lands donated to the United States as Capper Cramton land is vested in the state in which it is located. The Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) utilized Capper-Cramton funds to protect stream valleys in parts of Montgomery and Prince George’s Counties. Similarly, the District of Columbia used federal funds to develop recreation centers, playgrounds, and park systems. There is no evidence that Virginia utilized Capper-Cramton funds to acquire stream valley parks under the CCA. Today, over 10,000 acres of Capper-Cramton land have been established and preserved as a result of the act. This resource guide is for general information purposes, and is not a regulatory document.
    [Show full text]
  • Health and History of the North Branch of the Potomac River
    Health and History of the North Branch of the Potomac River North Fork Watershed Project/Friends of Blackwater MAY 2009 This report was made possible by a generous donation from the MARPAT Foundation. DRAFT 2 DRAFT TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF TABLES ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 TABLE OF Figures ...................................................................................................................................................... 5 Abbreviations ............................................................................................................................................................ 6 THE UPPER NORTH BRANCH POTOMAC RIVER WATERSHED ................................................................................... 7 PART I ‐ General Information about the North Branch Potomac Watershed ........................................................... 8 Introduction ......................................................................................................................................................... 8 Geography and Geology of the Watershed Area ................................................................................................. 9 Demographics .................................................................................................................................................... 10 Land Use ............................................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • From My Backyard to Our Bay an Anne Arundel County Resident’S Guide to Improving Our Environment and Protecting Our Natural Resources
    From My Backyard to Our Bay An Anne Arundel County Resident’s Guide to Improving our Environment and Protecting our Natural Resources From My Backyard to Our Bay The Chesapeake Bay is in Peril. What’s threatening the Bay? Nitrogen. Phosphorus. Sediment. These are the major pollutants responsible for the decline of water quality in the Chesapeake Bay and its tributaries. Nitrogen and phosphorus are nutrients that are essential food in the right quantities, but too much can be lethal to the Bay. Too much nutrients spawn the growth of algae which turns the water green and can be toxic to marine life, pets, and humans. When those algae die, they rob the water of oxygen and create ―dead zones‖ where fish, oysters, clams, and crabs can’t survive. Sediment is soil that washes into the Bay when it rains. It clouds the water and prevents underwater grasses from growing. These grasses produce oxygen and provide a place for young fish and crabs to develop and thrive. So who’s responsible? Every one of us. Every drop of water that falls on Anne Arundel County will make its way to the Bay. Along the way it will pick up and carry with it the things that we put on the ground. What can I do? From My Backyard to Our Bay offers tips for living in harmony with the Bay. It highlights how you can contribute to the health of your local watershed, maintain an environmentally friendly lawn, and manage stormwater runoff, wells, and septic systems in ways that will reduce the flow of pollutants and sediment into the Bay.
    [Show full text]
  • Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan Chapter 2: General Background 2017 – 2026 Plan (County Executive Draft - March 2017)
    Montgomery County Comprehensive Water Supply and Sewerage Systems Plan Chapter 2: General Background 2017 – 2026 Plan (County Executive Draft - March 2017) Table of Contents Table of Figures: ........................................................................................................................ 2-2 Table of Tables: ......................................................................................................................... 2-2 I. INTRODUCTION: ........................................................................................................... 2-3 II. NATURAL ENVIRONMENT: .......................................................................................... 2-3 II.A. Topography:................................................................................................................. 2-4 II.B. Climate: ....................................................................................................................... 2-4 II.C. Geology: ...................................................................................................................... 2-4 II.D. Soils: ............................................................................................................................ 2-5 II.E. Water Resources: ....................................................................................................... 2-6 II.E.1. Groundwater: ........................................................................................................ 2-6 II.E.1.a. Poolesville Sole Source Aquifer:
    [Show full text]
  • Projects Previously Awarded by the Montgomery County Watershed Restoration & Outreach Grant Program
    Projects Previously Awarded by the Montgomery County Watershed Restoration & Outreach Grant Program Year Organization Grant Project Title Project Description Awarded Amount 2015 Friends of Sligo $15,000 Public Outreach and Stewardship: To increase citizen awareness of water pollution and to give them Creek Expanding the Water WatchDog tools to stop it by sending an email and photo to the Montgomery Program in the Sligo Creek County government. We would like to expand an existing citizen- Watershed based reporting system called "Water WatchDogs", developed by 2 neighbors in Silver Spring. Over the past 9 years, the program has become a partnership of citizens, FOSC and Montgomery County's Department of Environmental Protection. It features a simple email address "[email protected]", which citizens can use to send reports and a photo of pollution to DEP's water detectives' smart phones. 2015 Rock Creek $38,000 Public Outreach and Stewardship- Rock Creek Conservancy has developed a program called Rock Conservancy Rock Creek Park In Your Backyard Creek Park in Your Backyard to educate homeowners in the Rock Creek watershed about the importance of protecting streams and parks through stewardship of lands outside of park boundaries. This program will combine outreach and engagement activities to encourage pollutant reduction on private property through RainScape practices with partnering with institutional properties to create conservation landscaping installations. We plan to work throughout the Rock Creek watershed in Montgomery County with an emphasis on the east side to reach under-represented populations. 2015 Anacostia $27,685 Community-Based Restoration Anacostia Riverkeeper will seek out three churches in Montgomery Riverkeeper Implementation: Churches to County as partners.
    [Show full text]
  • Urban Waterways & Civic Engagement
    RECLAIMING THE EDGE urban waterways & civic engagement RECLAIMING THE EDGE urban waterways & civic engagement Reclaiming the Edge: Urban Waterways and Civic Engagement is funded in part by the Smithsonian Institution Women’s Committee, the DC Commission on the Arts & Humanities—an agency supported in part by the National Endowment for the Arts, the Headquarters and Region 3 Offices of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and the Cornell Douglas Foundation. Cover Image: Learning to paddle a voyageur canoe on the Anacostia River Photograph by Keith Hyde, US Army Corps of Engineers, 2011 Wilderness Inquiry, Minneapolis, Minnesota Back Image: Earth Day, Washington, DC, 2012 Photograph by Susana A. Raab, Anacostia Community Museum Director’s Statement Reclaiming the Edge: Urban to that density have turned rivers from pristine waterways Waterways and Civic Engagement of fresh waters into murky, polluted tributaries creating is the Smithsonian Anacostia challenges for public health. It examines how rivers, natural Community Museum’s 45th borders, and barriers have contributed to economic, anniversary exhibition and racial, and social segregation. The exhibit spotlights the marks the official public launch diversity of the folk culture spawned by river communities. of the museum’s new mission— It explores new experiences in city planning and waterfront to challenge perceptions, development and assesses the role the river plays in wildness Photograph by John Francis Ficara broaden perspectives, generate and an environmental “place” within the urban experience. new knowledge, and deepen This exhibition will not only help audiences understand the understanding about the ever-changing concepts and realities American experience but also foster understanding and of “community.” This exhibition moves ACM into a new era of sustenance of a biodiverse planet.
    [Show full text]
  • Maryland's 2015-2019 Nonpoint Source Management Plan
    Maryland’s 2015-2019 Nonpoint Source Management Plan Department of the Environment 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 540 Baltimore MD 21230-1718 December 15, 2014 Updated August 4, 2016 Published and distributed by the Section §319(h) Nonpoint Source Program Maryland Department of the Environment 1800 Washington Boulevard, Suite 540 Baltimore MD 21230 Phone: 410-537-3906 Fax: 410-537-3873 Lee Currey, Director Science Services Administration Jim George, Manager Water Quality Protection and Restoration Program Ken Shanks, Chief TMDL Implementation Division Maryland’s Nonpoint Source Program is funded in part by a Section §319(h) Clean Water Act Grant from the U.S. EPA. Although this program is funded partly by U.S. EPA, the contents of this report do not necessarily reflect the opinion or position of EPA. Maryland’s 2015-2019 NPS Management Plan page ii TABLE OF CONTENTS ------ see first page(s) of each chapter for subheadings - Executive Summary - Chapter 1 – Introduction - Chapter 2 – Objectives and Milestones - Chapter 3 – Resource Assessment and Monitoring Programs - Chapter 4 – Maryland NPS Programs and Initiatives - Chapter 5 – Watershed Management to Achieve NPS Goals - Chapter 6 – Public Education, Outreach and Financial Assistance APPENDICES - Abbreviations - Maryland’s Chesapeake Bay Two-Year Milestones - Components of Maryland’s 2015-2019 Nonpoint Source Management Plan o (Documents designated as integral parts of Maryland’s NPS management plan) - Internet Sources - Milestones for Tracking Progress 2016 UPDATE LISTING - Cover
    [Show full text]